get_perps

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a reasonable job: it discloses the paid x402 model with exact cost, a hard cap of 5 markets per call, and which venues are aggregated. It omits what happens on payment failure, whether results are cached/live, and how over-limit requests are handled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and dense — resource, venues, metrics, limits, and price all arrive in a few fragments. The 0.01 USDC cost is stated twice (lead and tail), a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (funding, OI, mark/index, basis, spreads), from where, at what limit, and at what price. Return shape and pagination/error behavior are unspecified, but no output schema exists to compensate, leaving a small residual gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional 'markets' parameter already documents defaults (SOL,BTC,ETH), the max-5 cap, and supported symbols. The description restates the cap and adds no syntax or formatting meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and action: a perpetual-futures snapshot (funding, OI, mark/index, basis, cross-venue spreads) across three named Solana venues. The enumerated metrics and venue names make it unmistakable against siblings like get_price, get_token_report, or get_trending without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Scope is implied clearly enough (Solana perps data, max 5 markets, costs 0.01 USDC) that an agent knows when the tool applies. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to a sibling (e.g., use get_price for spot quotes), so routing guidance is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.